Re: [Cooker] Re: kernel-secure - back to UP/non-enterprise?
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Leon Brooks wrote: On Sunday 28 April 2002 11:10, Levi Ramsey wrote: On Sun Apr 28 9:51 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: Running Mandrake 5.2 in front of me is a dual PPro-200 system on a TD6NF mobo. One example does not a statistic make, but... Am I just being stupid, or aren't PPro's i686's? It could be me being stupid, but IIRC they didn't make the multi-CPU stuff entirely happy until very late in the series. IIRC, the chip architecture in the PPro's is the P6, which is the basis of everything up to the P4. I'm guessing that `basis' != complete feature set. Cheers; Leon As I recollect, P-II was electrically the same as the P-pro, but had MMX. In fact, www.Powerleap.com will sell you an accellerator for your UP P-Pro machine using a coppermine celeron processor past 700 MHz, and a PPGA celeron up to 533 MHz for Dual processor systems. So, as long as i686 optimization doesn't include MMX, etc, I think making the SMP kernels i686 optimized is a good move. I think i486 had better SMP support than classic Pentium, and none of the Pentium clones had any. Best Regards, Chuck Shirley
Re: [Cooker] Re: kernel-secure - back to UP/non-enterprise?
»Juan Quintela« sagte am 2002-04-27 um 12:51:01 +0200 : - i586 - i686 - i686SMP - i686-4GB Hm, are there any disadvantages in the -4GB part compared to the plain kernels? If not, then why not build every kernel with high mem support and drop the non -4GB ones? Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de |Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 3 days 10 hours 19 minutes
Re: [Cooker] Re: kernel-secure - back to UP/non-enterprise?
On Saturday 27 Apr 2002 16:20, Alexander Skwar wrote: »Juan Quintela« sagte am 2002-04-27 um 12:51:01 +0200 : - i586 - i686 - i686SMP - i686-4GB Hm, are there any disadvantages in the -4GB part compared to the plain kernels? If not, then why not build every kernel with high mem support and drop the non -4GB ones? Alexander Skwar Some things don't work with high memory support -- for example Win4Lin -- Peter Ruskin, Wrexham, Wales. AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 512MB RAM. Registered Linux User 219434. Mandrake Linux release 8.3 (Cooker) Kernel 2.4.18-12mdk, XFree86 4.2.0, patch level 9mdk. KDE: 3.0.1 (CVS = 20020327). Qt: 3.0.3. Up 22 hours 45 minutes.
Re: [Cooker] Re: kernel-secure - back to UP/non-enterprise?
On Saturday 27 April 2002 18:51, Juan Quintela wrote: Making SMP versions to work only in i686 upper is a good move because Pentium support for multiprocessing is quite bad, and anyways, there is almost no i586 SMP boards (comparing with i686/athlon boards). Running Mandrake 5.2 in front of me is a dual PPro-200 system on a TD6NF mobo. One example does not a statistic make, but... Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Re: kernel-secure - back to UP/non-enterprise?
On Sun Apr 28 9:51 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: Running Mandrake 5.2 in front of me is a dual PPro-200 system on a TD6NF mobo. One example does not a statistic make, but... Am I just being stupid, or aren't PPro's i686's? IIRC, the chip architecture in the PPro's is the P6, which is the basis of everything up to the P4. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] When it comes down to desperation, You make the best of your situation. Linux 2.4.18-11mdk 11:01pm up 6 days, 57 min, 7 users, load average: 0.01, 0.13, 0.15
Re: [Cooker] Re: kernel-secure - back to UP/non-enterprise?
On Sunday 28 April 2002 11:10, Levi Ramsey wrote: On Sun Apr 28 9:51 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: Running Mandrake 5.2 in front of me is a dual PPro-200 system on a TD6NF mobo. One example does not a statistic make, but... Am I just being stupid, or aren't PPro's i686's? It could be me being stupid, but IIRC they didn't make the multi-CPU stuff entirely happy until very late in the series. IIRC, the chip architecture in the PPro's is the P6, which is the basis of everything up to the P4. I'm guessing that `basis' != complete feature set. Cheers; Leon
